This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Liberal Vermont Senator Sanders may seek U.S. presidency in 2016

Originally Posted by justabubba

and if Bernie Sanders is elected you will continue to do so
however, if another neocon is elected, either you will pay more taxes on your modest income, or the national deficit will continue to increase, or some of both will occur

Re: Liberal Vermont Senator Sanders may seek U.S. presidency in 2016

Poor people and lower middle class people don't need to worry about Chanel handbags.

So how much would you like to take from the 1 percenters to give out to everyone else? And how exactly would we middle classers get the money - checks from the government?

I shop at Kohls and Macys. If the 1 percenters were taxed some more, or were forced to give up their billions, how much less would the cost of what I buy there be, and why?

I'm not in favor of government checks nor of higher taxes. No, I think the way to solve the problem of income inequality is more in the realm of free markets.

For one thing, let's not collect taxes to bail out the "too big to fail" entities, then let them pay their 1%ers huge bonuses. For another, let's tax all income the same, regardless of source. Then, let's get rid of the system whereby the wealthy purchase influence in the government that helps them become even more wealthy. There are several things that could be done to keep the US from becoming more like third world countries in which all of the wealth in concentrated in just a few hands.

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance. It is the illusion of knowledge" Stephen Hawking

Re: Liberal Vermont Senator Sanders may seek U.S. presidency in 2016

Originally Posted by Dittohead not!

I'm not in favor of government checks nor of higher taxes. No, I think the way to solve the problem of income inequality is more in the realm of free markets.

For one thing, let's not collect taxes to bail out the "too big to fail" entities, then let them pay their 1%ers huge bonuses. For another, let's tax all income the same, regardless of source. Then, let's get rid of the system whereby the wealthy purchase influence in the government that helps them become even more wealthy. There are several things that could be done to keep the US from becoming more like third world countries in which all of the wealth in concentrated in just a few hands.

I agree with that, especially with regard to capital gains. Or, if we insist on preferential capital gains treatment, making the holding period 5 years or 10 years so actual long term investors have an incentive for making LONG TERM investments. One year isn't long term. And certainly all pay (stock options and the like, hedge fund manager pay) should be taxed as ordinary income, same as wages, since those things are given in exchange for labor.

I'm a little bit torn on transfer payments (food stamps, medicaid, ACA subsidies, etc.). I'm not sure if they didn't exist if McD or Walmart (to pick two low wage employers at random) could get workers at $8 an hour if those workers couldn't depend on food stamps and Medicaid to cover healthcare for their kids. The theory is the wage floor in a "free market" is set by subsistence - workers won't tolerate pay below that level. What's unclear is what "subsistence" means in a 'free market' in the U.S. It could be just enough to buy food sufficient to avoid starvation and shelter sufficient to keep from freezing in winter and healthcare is optional? I don't know, but if the floor is that low, I don't think we can do without transfer payments and have stable society.

Re: Liberal Vermont Senator Sanders may seek U.S. presidency in 2016

Originally Posted by Dittohead not!

I'm not in favor of government checks nor of higher taxes. No, I think the way to solve the problem of income inequality is more in the realm of free markets.

For one thing, let's not collect taxes to bail out the "too big to fail" entities, then let them pay their 1%ers huge bonuses. For another, let's tax all income the same, regardless of source. Then, let's get rid of the system whereby the wealthy purchase influence in the government that helps them become even more wealthy. There are several things that could be done to keep the US from becoming more like third world countries in which all of the wealth in concentrated in just a few hands.

This didn't answer my questions though. I asked you how taxing the 1 percenters would result in middle class people gaining some of their wealth. I also asked you how taxing them more would reduce the cost of goods in stores.

Re: Liberal Vermont Senator Sanders may seek U.S. presidency in 2016

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday laid out tax reform proposals in letters to Sens. Max Baucus and Orrin Hatch. He declined an offer by the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee to keep his proposals secret.

Sanders wrote in letters that spelled out specific proposals to:

•Stop profitable Wall Street banks and corporations from sheltering profits in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Closing that tax loophole would reduce the deficit and create jobs that millions of Americans need.

•Establish a Wall Street speculation fee to ensure that large financial institutions pay their fair share in taxes. A fee of 0.03 percent on the sale of credit default swaps, derivatives, options, futures, and large amounts of stock would reduce gambling on Wall Street, encourage the financial sector to invest in the productive economy, and reduce the deficit by $352 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

•End tax breaks and subsidies for oil, gas and coal companies to reduce the deficit by more than $113 billion over the next 10 years. The five largest oil companies in the United States have made more than $1 trillion in profits over the past decade. Exxon Mobil is now the most profitable corporation in the world. Large, profitable fossil fuel companies do not need a tax break.

•Tax carbon and methane emissions that cause global warming. A bill by Sanders and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the Senate environment committee chairman, would apply fee at coal mines, oil refineries, national gas processing plants and other sites. Imported fuels would be subject to equivalent carbon fees. Some of the revenue would be returned to consumers and some would pay for investments in energy efficiency, sustainable energy, worker training and deficit reduction.

•Tax capital gains and dividends of the wealthiest 2 percent at the same rate as ordinary income to yield about $500 billion over the next decade. Today, the wealthy obtain most of their income from capital gains and dividends taxed at a much lower rate than work. The top marginal income tax for working is 39.6 percent, but the top tax rate on corporate dividends and capital gains is only 20 percent. That is not fair.

Re: Liberal Vermont Senator Sanders may seek U.S. presidency in 2016

Originally Posted by JasperL

I agree with that, especially with regard to capital gains. Or, if we insist on preferential capital gains treatment, making the holding period 5 years or 10 years so actual long term investors have an incentive for making LONG TERM investments. One year isn't long term. And certainly all pay (stock options and the like, hedge fund manager pay) should be taxed as ordinary income, same as wages, since those things are given in exchange for labor.

I'm a little bit torn on transfer payments (food stamps, medicaid, ACA subsidies, etc.). I'm not sure if they didn't exist if McD or Walmart (to pick two low wage employers at random) could get workers at $8 an hour if those workers couldn't depend on food stamps and Medicaid to cover healthcare for their kids. The theory is the wage floor in a "free market" is set by subsistence - workers won't tolerate pay below that level. What's unclear is what "subsistence" means in a 'free market' in the U.S. It could be just enough to buy food sufficient to avoid starvation and shelter sufficient to keep from freezing in winter and healthcare is optional? I don't know, but if the floor is that low, I don't think we can do without transfer payments and have stable society.

Long term capital gains are taxed at a different rate because most of the people making the laws, as well as the lobbyists who have their ear, make most of their money from capital gains. The root of the problem is that money has more of an influence on politics than people do.

As for low wage workers, yes, the government is subsidizing such employers by providing "free" health insurance and food stamps to their employees. It's purely a subsidy to big business and favors those who choose to hire from the bottom of the barrel. Such a subsidy could possibly be justified from the standpoint of providing employment to the marginally employable, but let's call it what it is: a subsidy.

Rather than have all the subsidies and minimum wage laws, we'd be better off if the government were the employer of last resort. No one would be willing to work for less than the government is willing and able to pay, why would they?

Moreover, let's join the civilized world and institute a system of universal health care, not paid for or connected to employment. Not only would it be a lot cheaper than the current system, but it would make it a lot easier to leave the corporate world, start a small business and be your own boss. Lifting the burden of health care from the employers would do more to create jobs than any tax break given to the wealthy.

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance. It is the illusion of knowledge" Stephen Hawking

Re: Liberal Vermont Senator Sanders may seek U.S. presidency in 2016

Originally Posted by tres borrachos

This didn't answer my questions though. I asked you how taxing the 1 percenters would result in middle class people gaining some of their wealth. I also asked you how taxing them more would reduce the cost of goods in stores.

There is a lot more to it than simply soaking the rich. Doing so would probably not result in more middle class.

See my response to Jaspert.

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance. It is the illusion of knowledge" Stephen Hawking

Re: Liberal Vermont Senator Sanders may seek U.S. presidency in 2016

Originally Posted by Dittohead not!

There is a lot more to it than simply soaking the rich. Doing so would probably not result in more middle class.

See my response to Jaspert.

The only reason to tax them more in an effort to get some "income equality" would be to find a way to actually have the middle class get more, not the poor, not the military, not Israel, not anyone else. I have yet to see a proposal that makes that happen.

Re: Liberal Vermont Senator Sanders may seek U.S. presidency in 2016

Originally Posted by tres borrachos

The only reason to tax them more in an effort to get some "income equality" would be to find a way to actually have the middle class get more, not the poor, not the military, not Israel, not anyone else. I have yet to see a proposal that makes that happen.

If capital gains were to be taxed the same as earned income, then possibly the rate for both could go down. That would be a boon to the middle class. Other than that, it's mostly a redirection of tax money that is needed.

Universal health care would be a huge boon to the middle class, as it would relieve them and their employers of the burden of providing health care. Some people who have their own businesses are paying many thousands of dollars per year for health care coverage, for example, and those who work for others could easily negotiate for higher salaries if the employer weren't saddled with that burden.

Lower cost college tuition would improve the middle class by making it easier for them to send kids to college, as well as by making it easier for the poor to move up to middle class status.

That sort of thing would pay dividends in the long run.

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance. It is the illusion of knowledge" Stephen Hawking

Re: Liberal Vermont Senator Sanders may seek U.S. presidency in 2016

Originally Posted by Dittohead not!

If capital gains were to be taxed the same as earned income, then possibly the rate for both could go down. That would be a boon to the middle class. Other than that, it's mostly a redirection of tax money that is needed.

Universal health care would be a huge boon to the middle class, as it would relieve them and their employers of the burden of providing health care. Some people who have their own businesses are paying many thousands of dollars per year for health care coverage, for example, and those who work for others could easily negotiate for higher salaries if the employer weren't saddled with that burden.

Lower cost college tuition would improve the middle class by making it easier for them to send kids to college, as well as by making it easier for the poor to move up to middle class status.

That sort of thing would pay dividends in the long run.

I understand all of this but it doesn't really tell me what I need.

If say Warren Buffet was taxed more, how much more money would you & I have as middle class people? The lower college costs is fine, but if someone doesn't have kids, or if someone's kids are already out of school (or go on a scholarship), no benefit to them. I pay thousands of dollars a year for healthcare for my family; I'm not sure how taxing Buffet more will change that (I don't think it will make costs come down).